Steve Miller
CONCEPTUAL ISSUES IN LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT - INTERPRETING THE STORY
Revised version of an article first appearing in
Journal of Jewish Educational Research
Volume 6, January 2000, Centre for Jewish Education (Leo Baeck College), Sternberg Centre, 80 East End Road, London, N3 2SY.
Steve Miller is an independent consultant working in the non-profit sector. Steve specialises in organisation development, creativity and leadership. He has also been responsible for setting up new organisations and special projects including feasibility studies, research projects, conferences and seminars. Formerly a youth and community worker and community educator, Steve has been a consultant on a Department for Education experimental project and has developed a particular interest in working with smaller voluntary agencies and local community organisations. He has co-ordinated several international Jewish leadership and educational conferences and was also for 15 years a consultant to the Reform and Liberal Synagogues on social justice and political issues. This paper is a revised version of an article which first appeared in the Journal of Jewish Educational Research.
Introduction
The precursor to this study was a project commissioned by a leading Jewish umbrella agency looking at the feasibility of raising the quality of leadership development programmes within the Jewish community by standardising certain key characteristics. Consequently the specific context of this study relates to concerns expressed within the Jewish community, although the scope of my inquiry is broadly-based and I believe that it raises questions about the nature of leadership in widely varying institutions.
The Jewish community itself is a diverse and fragmented grouping within UK society, exhibiting characteristics of both a religious and ethnic minority. The UK Jewish community is highly institutionalised and the Institute for Jewish Policy Research (JPR) estimates that it may include as many 4,000 different organisations.[*] In its recognition of organisational leadership as an essential pre-requisite for future effectiveness, and even survival, the Jewish community is reflecting a perception that is common across all sectors of society. The Jewish community expresses this perspective through
ð an awareness that Jewish voluntary organisations are going through a period of considerable pressure as a result of internal and external changes in the environment,
ð an awareness that 'leadership' is a much discussed and much sought after characteristic in the Jewish voluntary sector,
ð an awareness of the limitations of current provision for leadership development in the Jewish voluntary sector.
The paradox of leadership development
In 1981, a quiet and undistinguished cricketer, Mike Brearley, took over the England captaincy from the greatest cricketer of his generation, Ian Botham. Botham was a flamboyant and intuitive player, but had failed in the leadership role. England were on the brink of losing that summer's series of matches to Australia, but when Brearley assumed the captaincy everything seemed to change. Not only did the England team win a historic victory in the series, but Botham himself, released from the pressures of captaincy, played better than he had ever done before. Most commentators at the time, and since, have attributed this change in events directly to the leadership skills of Mike Brearley. In the hope of analysing and understanding these skills, and developing them in others, many words have been written on the subject. Sadly for English cricket the last decade has seen the failure of captain after captain.[*] The nature of leadership defies understanding, or at the very least, what understanding we have, does not help us to develop leadership skills in those who do not already possess them.
It is this paradox which I aim to explore in this study. We are apparently able to describe aspects of leadership - sometimes at great length and very convincingly. But we seem unable to find ways to apply this knowledge in formal educational programmes in ways that make a measurable difference. That is not to say that leadership development programmes are completely ineffectual. They bring together talented people with ambition and desire to learn. Good programmes create interactions that are stimulating and occasionally inspiring. Participants may become more enthusiastic and strengthened in their endeavours.
But, it is my impression from observing leadership development programmes, that these significant and positive outcomes rarely derive in a linked, planned way from the structure and content of the programme. Mostly, organisers stress the importance (genuine and significant) of the informal contact among participants and between participants and faculty. They are aware that this is probably the most important aspect of the event but without any understanding of why and how this should be. Even where the structure and content do have a significant impact on the participants, the effect on their leadership endeavours in the future is rarely predictable or understood.
Scientific approaches to describing leadership
Social research in the twentieth century has been dominated by the scientific rationalist approach. Data is gathered, preferably through large scale surveys, and analysed to determine trends and themes, with the hope of being able to predict future behaviour. The study of leadership is no exception to this rule.
For over fifty years much data has been gathered and analysed concerning the nature of leadership. Early studies in the 1940s attempted to define the qualities and traits of an effective leader. Many lists have been produced but
'Fifty years of study have failed to produce one personality trait or set of qualities that can be used to discriminate between leaders and non-leaders.' (Jennings, 1961 p.2)
Yet this particular approach seems to be enduringly popular. I would suggest that this is because of the apparent scientific validity of the testing and development mechanisms. The volume of aptitude and other psychometric tests that are conducted in all organisational sectors has grown considerably in recent years. Apparently reliable information appears to be derived from them, but they do not seem to be effective predictors of future capability.
Other studies turned the focus away from personality traits and towards the kinds of behaviour that leaders exhibit. Beginning with two pioneering studies at Ohio State University and the University of Michigan, this area of study has coalesced into two main and inter-linked strands of study. The first focuses on the functions and responsibilities of a leader within a group or corporate context. The second focuses on varying leadership styles that leaders exhibit. In both these approaches there is a growing consensus that leadership behaviour varies according to the situation and context. While less rigid than personality trait approaches, these behaviour-based approaches still represent a desire to find a formula for the necessary behaviour in any given situation. Easily administered diagnostic tools have been developed which appear to give a lot of information but, in the opinion of many people they simply do not help people become more effective leaders.
Reviewing large numbers of texts which follow this scientific approach suggests that, ultimately the search is futile because
a) any consensus is likely to focus on the most general issues,
b) the more the scientific approach simplifies for the sake of analysis, the more it is removed from the reality of leadership itself, and
c) the characteristics of personality and behaviour vary over space and time.
This reinforces my view that leadership is not a universally constant attribute but something that is variable. This is not to say that the study of personality factors and behaviour factors are unhelpful in themselves, but simply that the desire to isolate universal characteristics is unlikely to lead to any clear conclusion.
Working towards understanding
If universality in description, analysis and prescription are doomed to failure, then is there an alternative for the social scientist? In response to the failure of conventional positivist approaches to develop a theoretical framework which might lead towards predictable outcomes in leadership development, I believe that an alternative approach is required. Within this approach reality, knowledge and understanding are more fluid concepts which are constructed and changed in many different ways. As a qualitative researcher I support Smith's (1993) view that
'the interpretation of meaning is the central focus of social and educational inquiry.' (p184)
I am particularly interested in this interpretative or hermeneutical approach and find in it resonances with traditional Jewish exegetical and interpretative approaches (dating back to at least 165 BCE) to examining 'fixed' texts.
Within this approach personal subjective experience plays a central part. Van Manen, (1990) describes 'lived experience' as
'... the breathing of meaning. In the flow of life, consciousness breathes meaning in a to and fro movement: a constant heaving between the inner and the outer ...' (p36)
If meaning and understanding become the prime goals of social research, and lived experience is the subject, then cognitive mental processes, and particularly patterns, metaphor and stories become the filter through which we can reach this understanding. Smith (1992) who discusses cognitive thought processes, sees stories as fundamental. They are an indivisible part of our unconscious, representing in different ways, the essence of our being. According to Smith,
'Thought flows in terms of stories ... We construct stories to make sense of events.'
I suggest that the reason for this increasing interest in stories of all kinds is precisely because of the imprecise nature of contemporary life. Because reality is ambiguous, and because traditional scientific, rational approaches to understanding are finding it increasingly difficult to make sense of reality, some other form needs to be found. It precisely because a story does not have to be objective 'fact', but we accept naturally that it can be a 'version' of reality, that our relationship with it is simpler. Both the teller of the story and the audience know that a story is successful if it resonates with a subjective view of reality.
I am not the only one to relate story to leadership. Howard Gardner in his remarkable study, Leading Minds: an anatomy of leadership (1997) made the use of story central. In common with many writers about leadership, he tells stories of great leaders highlighting those aspects that he finds most pertinent. But in addition to this use of story as a way of conveying information about leadership, he also sees the leaders' own use of story as central to their success or otherwise.
From these perspectives, I have developed a methodology which looks in new ways at leadership. I am also interested in what I would call methodological symmetry. That is where the content and method reflect each other in some meaningful manner. In this regard the interaction between story, language and texts,
ð as a means through which leaders relate to followers,
ð and also how the Jewish tradition (as other cognitive, mythological or visionary traditions) is passed on through thousands of years,
ð and also as a means by which people can learn how to lead,
ð and also how I can understand the process of leadership and leadership development,
becomes in itself a powerful pattern. When modern hermeneutical understanding underpins my research methodology and is laid alongside the several thousand year-old Jewish hermeneutical tradition which is used to develop leadership awareness in the Jewish community, this seems to me to add qualitatively to the validity of the methodology.
Using this approach to re-examine leaders and the texts that people write about leaders, I am not embarked in a new search for a more accurate list of leadership attributes. Rather, I am fully aware that each academic discourse is an interpretation and derives as much from the writer's experience of reality as it does from any universal truth.
The telling of the stories of leadership
In returning to look at leadership itself I would describe various approaches which people have taken in the form of various stories.
I have already dealt with what I consider to be the first of the 'stories' of leadership. That is the scientific story in which the main actors in the story were engaged in a quest for universal truth. Although this quest told us a lot about leadership it ultimately failed in its self-defined goal of universal predictability.
A story of opposites
In this story, the main actors talk about the nature of leadership by describing two polarised characteristics. In most forms of this story these polar positions are superficially concerned with purely descriptive differences , but almost every occasion when this story is told there is a hidden value-based and prescriptive agenda.
In an early form the story of opposites was concerned with power versus influence. This arose in the post-Second World War period as autocratic power was seen as a very negative characteristic. So, in this story real leadership, by which was meant ethically good leadership was about non-coercive influence, and not about the raw abuse of power. I suspect that currently, people would not see these two characteristics as quite so dramatically opposed.
Another story of opposites related management to leadership. In the 1970s, after the first great explosion of scientific management theories, management was seen as discredited and, as leadership became the higher status term, the two were distinguished by opposing meanings, culminating in Warren Bennis' famous dictum, 'Management is doing something right, and leadership is doing the right thing.'
A more substantial theory, originally developed by Burns (1978) is the theory of transactional versus transformational leadership. This theory has been taken up by many writers as it focuses not on the difficult area of what a leader does, but on their intentions and outcomes.
'Transactional leadership is responsive and its basic orientation is dealing with present issues. The effective transactional leaders is the master of "give and take". ... Transformational leadership is proactive. This kind of leader sees the present as a springboard to achieve future aims.' (Popper and Zakkai, 1994, p5)
This kind of story clearly originates from a time when we know that things have to change, and in fact are already changing extremely rapidly, and we need the kind of leaders who will guide us through those changes. Unfortunately this approach, while important as a way of re-orienting us to vital issues, does little to help us see how we might become more effective.
A story of values
Of particular importance in the voluntary sector are stories that talk of values. It is within this story that I have placed Paulo Freire (1970) and Hope and Timmel, (1984). Within the Freirian tradition, Hope and Timmel (1984) write the following,